Canada and the United States: The Politics of Partnership by Robert Bothwell (review)

248 CanadianReview of American Studies conceptions of family life which were, in many respects, prototypical of nineteenthcentury experience. Child rearing within them was based on the religiously derived perception of the child as a "tender plant" requiring the nurturance of a loving family to shield it from the corruptions of a carnal world. This notion was clearly distinct from the orthodox Protestant view of children as bearers of original sin, whose development must be supervised by a vigilant community, to the extent of sometimes encouraging their removal from the family itself. It is perhaps inevitable that in a short book on a large theme there would be a tendency to overgeneralise. And, despite its flaws, Wall's book is a brave effort which merits widespread use in undergraduate courses as long as its readers are aware that it offers, not convincing social theory, but a model of social development which requires continual testing against empirical research. John Sainsbury Brock University •••••• Robert Bothwell. Canada and the United States: The Politics of Partnership. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Pp. ix + 190. Since the 1960s,two characteristics have dominated the writing on CanadianAmerican relations. First, much of the work has been done by those in the Canadian media and the academic world with a focus on how Ottawa officials, public opinion, and interest groups viewed the relationship with the United States. Secondly, much of this literature has a decidedly anti-American tone which has become the basis of postwar Canadian nationalism. Professor Bothwell offers a variation on these themes. He presents the reader with an old-fashioned history in the sense that it is crafted as gracefully written, witty, and sometimes irreverent narrative. The research is balanced between the main secondary works and original archival records. The focus is on governmental elites and individual leaders and the main issues are political and economic in nature. It is different from earlier studies in that it offers a much more balanced perspective, to the point that, in some circles, Professor Bothwell may be accused of being a naive continentalist. From Professor Bothwell's perspective, the relationship between Canada and the United States evolved as the result of personalities, perceptions, and domestic politics. Less attention is paid to the constraints of the international political system, the balance of power, and Canada's strategic geographic position in North America BookReviews 249 asdeterminants of policy. Moreover, the introduction could have included an explanation of where his approach and perspective stand in relation to previous studies. Thoughhe does not offer much analysis ofwhat motivated American policy towards Canada and how Canada fitted in with the overall objectives of American foreign policy,he does present new information, at least to this reader, about polls indicating that most Canadians were critical of American draft dodgers. He also restates some controversial points about the double-edged sword of anti-Americanism in Canada. For example, labour unions and the New Democratic Party have traditionally been critical of the excesses of American intervention abroad but have not attempted to stopunions in the automobile and high technology sector from exporting arms products to fuel the American war machine. There are several reasons to commend this overview,which on balance, outweigh any negative criticism. First of all, Professor Bothwell stands above the antiAmericanism fashionable in the media and academic world. He generally has great respect for the way Canadian leaders, especiallythose in the Liberal Party, handled relations with the United States. Canadian negotiating teams sent to hammer out newtrade agreements with the United States were well staffed and better informed than their American counterparts. Other political parties have played on the theme of manipulating anti-Americanism for political gain. The best example of this political chicanery was the former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker who was simultaneously contradictory, hypocritical, and ill-informed. Prime Minister Mulroney, on occasion, similarly appeared to be well versed in the art of economic Machiavellianism by using the free trade issue to bolster the political fortunes of his party, whichwas riddled with scandals in 1985-86. On the other side of the political fence, the reader isnot informed about how strong Liberal opposition leader John Turner's free trade views were in...